Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Activity for Fie
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #284257 |
I think you've made a good observation that adds to the bigger picture here. The problem we have with the 'fragmentation' (and general mess) you describe is that what we'd really like at a certain point is for a wiki-style self-answer writeup to try to distill the problem into the 'best' form to help... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
As for questions marked as either, I think that the notice/banner above a question works perfectly well—especially if there's a grace period on the voting, since it only serves to guide users to making the appropriate assessment. I think that it's especially sensible to show the suggestion immediatel... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
That sounds about right. I think that the term 'repeat[ed] question' could be useful (to replace '[exact ]duplicate')—both to distance from the established expectations, and because I think it better carries the subtle meaning that this question is *repeating* another (which is more obviously undesir... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
Perhaps one way of achieving what you're talking about—and something I'd agree with—is with the use of a closure reason "low research effort/not good question", or similar: the 'implied' closure-by-duplicate for the open-and-shut cases, but with a different name, and separating the sentiments of the ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
I like it! How about 'similar questions'? That way, we can keep 'related questions' for what we're used to: questions on a *related* (but not the same) *topic;* whereas *similar* questions are...well, *similar* questions around the *same* topic. Naming aside, I think you're bang on—this is an importa... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
One final thought is that the nature of the issue behind duplicate resolution is a very 'big picture' problem: questions which are asked *more specifically than necessary* can end up not leaving space for a more general question-answer which *would* help people who might want to ask a different (also... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
As a note to your first point, an initial draft of this post had a different approach, and did indeed stray more on the side of separating duplicates from closure. If people are interested in that premise, then something I think might be worth considering is differentiating between 'soft' and 'hard' ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284228 |
I'm elated to have received such a positive response. It really makes me aware of how I've been feeling, and makes me greatful for the environment that's being cultivated here. Very glad that you think this helpful—I hope that we get some more feedback to try to refine these ideas and figure out the ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284228 |
Post edited: That's much more sensible. |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284228 | Initial revision | — | over 3 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Let's improve how we handle duplicates As a momentary foreword, I would like to express my appreciation to you and all of the members of the community which have worked to make this site possible. I wish it the best in its growth and development, and hope to help as a part of it. Now, here's my proposal on this topic: Duplicate proposa... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |